AuthorTopic: Another day another virus scare. (Read 5898 times)

You are pointing out potential effects, not harm. To be meaningful, you need to demonstrate the the effects cause harm by some more rigorous manner than expressing your personal opinion.

Further, the numbers you quote as "evidence" are meaningless in the absence of a comparative standard by which they can be evaluated. For instance, an area 10 km by 10 km by 100m deep contains 10,000,000,000 tonnes of water and if all that 2000 tonnes of Nitrogen produced by one years crop of salmon were dissolved in that area, a concentration of 1 part nitrogen in 5,000,000 parts seawater would result if there were no consumption of that nitrogen by plants and algae which are actually food for higher forms of life which are themselves in turn consumed by even higher forms of life. Since the volume and therefore the weight of water in the coastal areas of BC is orders of magnitude greater than the calculated example, since it is constantly mixed by winds, waves and tide and since dilution rate is logarithmic over distance in three dimensions, the actual concentration of Nitrogen will be orders of magnitude less than 1 in 5,000,000 and the cumulative effect all but unmeasurable. Were it measurable, it would likely display an ever-so-slight increase in the standing biomass of life in coastal waters

I suspect that if you had ever been anywhere near a salmon farm you would realize how ridiculous your notion that 9 or a dozen farms would fill the Park is. Even if they did, ten times the size of the Park is still a minuscule area compared to the extent of the coastal waters of the province and it wouldn't change Nitrogen production.

I did not say 9 or a dozen farms would fill the park (I said they appeared to cover about 1/3), what I suggested was that the area affected by 9 or a dozen farms would cover the park. You ask me to check on Google Earth and "see for myself"...so I did.

I am pointing out the harmful effect. Are you suggesting that the total accumulation of organic carbon and the subsequent reduction in the abundance and bio diversity of micro-, meio- and macrobenthic organisms beneath the farms, is not harmful? If it were not harmful, why are the scientists recommending the farms be located at a minimum 2km safe distance from "any benthic system traditionally considered as vulnerable" (Pusceddu et al, p. 1372)? Again, I think we can agree to disagree here.

If it makes you feel better Chris ... I am a retired senior research technician spending 37 years with DFO at the Cultus Lake Laboratory. At retirement I was the outreach coordinator for the Cultus Lake Sockeye program, ran a network of water temperature data loggers throughout the Fraser River watershed and, through DFO's Environment Watch program and in collaboration with UBC and SFU scientists, sampled and histologically examined many, many thousands of Fraser River sockeye and chinook.

I am a fish farmer for some 19 years now. I also own and operate a private accommodations for tourism in tofino. Avid fisher, surfer dude, wilderness nut. I also do a small amount of salt water charters.

I am a fish farmer for some 19 years now. I also own and operate a private accommodations for tourism in tofino. Avid fisher, surfer dude, wilderness nut. I also do a small amount of salt water charters.

Good on you and Dave for posting this info. Now it would nice to hear some of your recreational fishing stories on fishing reports too.

I have operated a small business doing custom woodwork for quite a few years; furniture, doors and cabinets are my usual fare. In the past, I worked in the farming business as a special projects coordinator for a large outfit and traveled extensively among the farms and hatcheries up and down the coast.

I did not say 9 or a dozen farms would fill the park (I said they appeared to cover about 1/3), what I suggested was that the area affected by 9 or a dozen farms would cover the park. You ask me to check on Google Earth and "see for myself"...so I did.

I am pointing out the harmful effect. Are you suggesting that the total accumulation of organic carbon and the subsequent reduction in the abundance and bio diversity of micro-, meio- and macrobenthic organisms beneath the farms, is not harmful? If it were not harmful, why are the scientists recommending the farms be located at a minimum 2km safe distance from "any benthic system traditionally considered as vulnerable" (Pusceddu et al, p. 1372)? Again, I think we can agree to disagree here.

We can agree to disagree in our opinions but we do need to be sure that we are working with the same set of facts.

In order to understand it, you need to look at the whole picture, not just single aspects taken out of context and interpreted according to a set of parameters based on personal bias. There is some deposition directly beneath the farms but it is undergoing a continuous process of breaking down to constituent elements; that breakdown is accelerated by site fallowing. If there are creatures that find the environment less than ideal, they simply move 100m to an environment essentially unaffected by the deposition; consequently, diversity in the benthic substrate immediately under the pen is somewhat reduced but overall diversity within an area is unaffected. That is not a permanent condition, nor one that is particularly harmful, nor one that affects the seabed a stone's throw from the pens.

Arguing precisely how many farms fit into Stanley Park is a sidetrack that has nothing to do with the point being made, though having done the actual calculation of area occupied by the farms in the past, I'll stand by my assertion that all farms will fit within the Park. The point, once again, is that the farms use an extremely small area of the coast and that because of oceanographic conditions, physical principles, biological principles and the nature of the materials being deposited, the depositions are not causing harm nor are they a cause for concern.

I have operated a small business doing custom woodwork for quite a few years; furniture, doors and cabinets are my usual fare. In the past, I worked in the farming business as a special projects coordinator for a large outfit and traveled extensively among the farms and hatcheries up and down the coast.

Chris is way too modest to say he has been and continues to be involved in many environmental and ethical angling issues here in Chilliwack. A past member of the Chilliwack River Action Committee, a founding member of the Chilliwack Vedder River Cleanup Society, the Fraser Valley Salmon Society and the Great Blue Heron Reserve. Ö and much more.He has received awards and accolades from the City of Chilliwack, the Fraser Valley Regional District and his peers.

And the good news is he is slowly coming around to the fact that salmon farming ainít all bad

Chris is way too modest to say he has been and continues to be involved in many environmental and ethical angling issues here in Chilliwack. A past member of the Chilliwack River Action Committee, a founding member of the Chilliwack Vedder River Cleanup Society, the Fraser Valley Salmon Society and the Great Blue Heron Reserve. Ö and much more.He has received awards and accolades from the City of Chilliwack, the Fraser Valley Regional District and his peers.

And the good news is he is slowly coming around to the fact that salmon farming ainít all bad